Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Killing Gays: Still Illegal [Hate Crimes]

President Obama signed a hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday, telling an audience at the White House that the provision would “strengthen the protections against crimes based on the color of your skin, the faith in your heart, or the place of your birth.”

The law expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation. Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

“Prosecutors will have new tools to work with states in order to prosecute to the fullest those who would perpetrate such crimes,” Mr. Obama said, speaking in the East Room of the White House at an evening reception, “Because no one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.”

There has been an expansion of hate crimes law to include LGBT members. What are your thoughts on that, hate crimes legislation in general, or that fancy desk? Mostly this is a split from the GOP thread and the discussion occurring within. My own views on hate crimes in general are most succinctly summed up by one Mr. Iron D. Will, Esquire.

I'm okay with it. Motive is a factor in the severity of sentencing all crimes, as it should be. Explicitly increasing the penalties for crimes spurred by a certain motivation held to be especially socially destructive doesn't strike me as abhorrent.

Posts

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?

No, I'm fine with that part.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.

I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.

I don't think it's important to differentiate why they intended to kill someone beyond mental incapacity.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?

No, I'm fine with that part.

So you rescind the bolded statement?

What about between killing someone because they wouldn't give you your wallet, or killing someone because they are Jewish and you believe all Jews should die?

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?

No, I'm fine with that part.

So why does it become thought policing when the list includes "crimes of hate"?

Seriously, if you kidnap someone and hold them for $1 million ransom, it's just kidnapping and extortion. If you kidnap someone and demand that the American government get out of Iraq/release prisoners in Guantanamo, it's terrorism. Intent and motive matter, even if the crime being committed is the same between the two situations.

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.

I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Differentiating between manslaughter, crimes of passion, and cold-blooded murder borders on thought policism?

No, I'm fine with that part.

So you rescind the bolded statement?

What about between killing someone because they wouldn't give you your wallet, or killing someone because they are Jewish and you believe all Jews should die?

I think my second use of "and" is giving an improper interpretation of the bolded part.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

My thought on hate crimes in general is that things are already illegal, and we already have degrees of punishment based on pre-meditated/not intentional/accidental, and they border on thought policism.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to get beaten up for thinking that. =)

Yet you don't consider it "thought crime" to have punishment based on intent for some reason.

I think it's important to distinguish whether or not the person intended to kill someone or just happened to kill someone through a stupid decision.

That is thought policing.

I don't think it is.

If I accidentally kill someone, I think making that distinction is very important when determining my punishment. If I kill someone for wearing red shoes, that's a pretty stupid reason, but it shouldn't change the fact that I meant to kill them in any way.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

I'm lukewarm on the subject of hate crime being illegal, rather than intent simply being a mitigating factor in sentencing, but I get the reasoning for it. And if we're going to have hate crime legislation, it makes sense to include sexuality in the definition. So if nothing else, yay for consistency.

edit: More to the point, I don't like the idea of "protected classes" as recognized by hate crime legislation. The most convincing argument in favor of such laws is that the act itself constitutes a kind of terrorism. You're not simply beating up a black dude, you're sending a message to all blacks that they better watch out because they're not safe.

Okay, that makes sense. But then shouldn't any attack against a member of any identifiable group because of membership in that group also qualify as a hate crime? If I murder a gay guy and nail his corpse to a tree with a sign saying, "Fuck you, faggots," that's a hate crime. If I murder a liberal and nail his corpse to a tree saying, "Fuck you, liberals," isn't that pretty much the same? The only difference is that violence against gays is semi-common, while violence against liberals is less so. But that seems a somewhat lacking reason to not recognize that anti-liberal violence has the exact same sort of underlying intent as anti-gay violence.

And really, it would seem to make it even easier to craft the legislation. Instead of having to explicitly name every single group that can plausibly be the victim of hate crime, you just create some general language about "actions against a person meant to intimidate or terrorize all members of a distinguishable group," or something. Bam, done.

Yes, yes, anti-<random group> crime isn't an epidemic, so crafting such legislation isn't a huge priority. But I would like such laws better if they were designed as such.

ElJeffe on October 2009

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

Motive just about always determines the extent of punishment sought already. How is that not an Equal Protection issue?

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.

I know, but I disagree with them being a different class of crime.

Murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, etc.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.

If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?

A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

That already exists. Sentencing comes in degrees depending on intent, motive, past history, &c. How are none of those facets of our Justice System, practiced long before the first Hate Crimes Bill was penned, thought policing and Equal Protection issues if Hate Crimes law is?

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

Hate crimes are prosecuted as a different class of crime as far as I know. You don't get prosecuted and convicted for shooting someone and then they start applying the hate crimes laws to you.

I know, but I disagree with them being a different class of crime.

Murder is murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, etc.

This is just silly. All of that is killing a person. The differentiation between the different types of killing someone is entirely based on motive and intent. What is so onerous about adding another distinction on top of the ones we already have?

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

You're not talking about hate crime legislation, you're talking about the fictional straw man version of hate crime legislation.

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

You're confusing a misapplication of the concept with the concept itself.

If you beat up a black guy to send a message to the black community that white women are not for them, it would be different than if you did it strictly because HOLY CRAP A DUDE IS BANGING MY SISTER RAWR.

I already said it before: if motivation can be considered for murder or terrorism, it can be considered for hate crimes.

I'm fine with using "he beat the kid up for being gay" as "motive" in order to add to the chance of a conviction. I'm not fine with it being used for added punishment. I think there are Equal Protection issues there.

I don't really understand what establishing motives as a basis for sentencing has to do with equal protection...

Because you're making certain people "more valuable" than others.

No you're not. The hate-crime enhancement exists for crimes where you're not just targeting a particular victim, but an entire selection of people. It's a crime whose intended victim is not just the single person you afflicted.

If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

Perhaps someone who takes their political cues from South Park isn't the best person to gauge whether or not something is a good piece of legislation?

A simple assault has the effect of chilling a local community. A hate crime chills a much larger community and inspires others.

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

If you beat a black man because he banged your sister, it's assault.

If you beat a black man because he's black, it's a hate crime.

Armored Gorilla on October 2009

"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."

So despite the action being the same the intent warrants a different punishment? If I kick the crap out of a white guy because he banged my sister its assault but if I do it to a black guy its a hate crime and I should be punished harder? Even if I didnt do it because he was black? No, hate crime sucks balls.

If you beat up a guy who slept with your sister who merely happens to be black that isn't a hate crime.

I've made this argument before and was refuted with the idea that people aren't so dumb as to not recognize that... a point to which I conceded.

Chanus on October 2009

**Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone

If you beat someone up because you hate him, does the reason matter that much? You commited assault.

I'm assuming this is snark. If you shoot someone dead, they are dead no matter what your intent or motivation. And yet we have distinctions for severity of that crime depending on motivation and intent.

Cold blooded murder and emotional things should matter. if youve taken time to plan and murder someone then you're more dangerous than someone who attacked in the heat of hte moment.

But if you plan out and beat up a black man it shouldnt be considered any harsher than a white or asian person being your target, you set out to plan and attack someone, thats the scenario. Your underlying motivation doesnt matter, its the forethought that does.

DarkWarrior on October 2009

...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.

0

Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular

As far as I can tell, this doesn't change the jurisdiction of assaults or murders or places Federal Mandatory minimums on sentencing. All this bill does is provide additional resources to the justice department to provide investigative assistance.